Standing Committee B

[Mr. Bill O'Brien in the Chair]

Energy Bill [Lords]

Clause 96 - Safety zones around renewable energy installations

Bill O'Brien: Before I call the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), I point out that the usual rules apply: all mobile phones in the Room must be switched off.

Anne McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in
clause 96, page 75, line 17, at end add—
 '(11) Before issuing a notice, the Secretary of State must consult with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chief Executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 165, in
clause 102, page 78, line 15, at end insert 
 ', following consultation with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chief Executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.'. 
No. 166, in 
clause 103, page 80, line 20, at end insert— 
 '(f) consult with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chief Executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.'.

Anne McIntosh: I am delighted to be here this afternoon to see you in your place, Mr. O'Brien. [Interruption.] Labour Members may laugh, but I was requested to show an interest in a debate on the Floor of the House.

Bill O'Brien: Order. More voice, please.

Anne McIntosh: I am getting there. Would the Minister make a little less noise in pouring the water? I am getting more used to the Government's tactics during proceedings.
 The Minister has made way for his colleague, the Under-Secretary, and it is nice to see him in his place. The Minister said that he believes it sufficient to make a commitment in the Committee, as I am sure his hon. Friend will echo this afternoon, to assure us that the Government are at one and that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will meet and consult the Secretary of State for Transport and the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. 
 I do not wish to pre-empt the Minister's response, but we believe it prudent to specify in the Bill that consultations should take place in relation to the safety zones around renewable energy installations. Although you are no longer a member of the Transport Committee, Mr. O'Brien, I know that you 
 continue to take an interest in the work of that august body. You will have been impressed by the conclusions reached from the evidence, given that, regrettably, those consultations did not take place. Why did they not happen before round 1 and 2 sites were considered? What steps have the Government taken to ensure that consultations will take place in future? 
 Amendment No. 165 would insert a similar requirement for consultation in clause 102. It is regrettable that there was a failure to consult with the official Government agency—the MCA—which is responsible for the markings, the buoys and ensuring that public rights of navigation are insisted on. It is important that a balance is struck among the traditional public rights of navigation enjoyed by a wide variety of interests—particularly commercial shipping, but to a lesser extent recreational shipping, fishing and other maritime activities—and that marine life should not be endangered. 
 I am sure the Minister will tell the Committee why—during the initial stages of consultation on part 3, chapter 1—his Department was persuaded that there was no need to consult the relevant Department, or, through that Department, the relevant maritime, navigation and shipping interests and the relevant agency, the MCA. Amendment No. 166 relates to clause 103, which covers further provision relating to the public right of navigation. The same arguments persist there. 
 If the Government are serious about making a success of their renewable energy commitments, the Committee and the interest groups to which I referred must be satisfied that the Bill will strike a balance in exercising the various interests. The Department clearly got off to a regrettably poor start by failing to consult the interest groups concerned. I would not want to conclude from that that the Government are seeking to extinguish public rights of navigation in every way, but that was certainly the impression left in certain quarters of the shipping industry. That leads me neatly to the conclusion that this is an opportunity for the Government to eat a bit of humble pie. That is a highly recommended diet: it is fairly light in calories, has a low cholesterol and fat content, and does not lead to any excess of weight that might cause distress. 
 I invite the Committee to support our humble amendments, and the Minister to explain why the Committee should be persuaded that, in view of the failure to take any account of, or to consult, the relevant Department, agency and interests, this will not happen again.

Nigel Griffiths: I could say that it is a great pleasure to be here again this afternoon, Mr. O'Brien, but I might be fibbing. However, it is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your wise chairmanship.
 I agree with the hon. Member for Vale of York that consultation between the Secretary of State for Transport and the MCA is essential before the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry considers whether to issue a notice declaring a safety zone around a renewable energy installation, or, as the hon. 
 Lady put it, to extinguish the public right of navigation. I am informed, however, that she has been misinformed about the degree of consultation and co-operation that there has been so far. 
 I am content that our civil servants at the DTI have worked very closely with the MCA to draft the Bill. That co-operation will continue as we implement and operate the Bill's provisions. It is not, however, appropriate to write into the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry formally to consult the Secretary of State for Transport in view of the fact that, as the Bill is phrased, both Secretaries of State are legally indivisible and act together. 
 I am advised that the reference to the Secretary of State includes all Secretaries of State. The Secretary of State for Transport is therefore covered where the matter falls within his or her functions, which, of course, include the protection of navigation. I understand that the hon. Lady has been e-mailing the MCA, so she will know that it is an executive agency of the Department for Transport. It exercises the functions of the Secretary of State for Transport, so again no separate reference to it is necessary or appropriate. 
 I would hope that a party that is trying to show a public face that is against more regulation and bureaucracy will not press to a vote an amendment that, if accepted, would write in a requirement to hold further formal consultation and that might create more paperwork, particularly when we are ensuring that the appropriate Secretaries of State are consulted and are continuing the dialogue and close work that I am advised is already taking place between them and the MCA in framing the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am most grateful to the Minister for his remarks, but the evidence that we on the Transport Committee took is quite powerful. I remind him and members of the Committee of the Transport Committee's conclusion No 7:
 ''It is the Government's task to balance the need of the country for clean renewable energy with its need for ready and safe access to its ports by the shipping through which we trade. In doing this, it must take account of the very real risks that off-shore installations pose for shipping.'' 
Throughout all the conclusions—I will not rehearse them again—the Government's knuckles are firmly rapped. Conclusion No. 2 states: 
 ''With little or no maritime representation on the steering group, it is hardly surprising that the . . . strategic environmental assessment made very little reference to navigational matters.'' 
However, I accept the Minister's assurance that the Government have, in all probability, learned the error of their ways, and one would hope that they do not revert to such poor consultations. Based on that assurance and what the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services said this morning, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 185, in
clause 96, page 75, line 17, at end add—
 '(11) The Secretary of State must ensure that all efforts are made also to make use of such areas for marine conservation purposes by designating, where practically possible, said areas as protected marine reserves.'.
 It is a pleasure to serve with you again this afternoon, Mr. O'Brien. The amendment was tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), and it takes us in a different direction from that of our earlier discussions. Until now, the emphasis has been on the damage, difficulty and anxieties caused if safety zones are set up and renewable energy sources developed offshore. We seek a more positive approach to the opportunities that will be available if or when such zones are set up. The amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that, where practical, areas set aside for renewable energy generation should also serve the purposes of marine conservation. 
 The reality is that an area of the sea floor and of the sea in which fishing, transient shipping and human intervention are reduced provides real opportunities for marine conservation. In fact, having additional structures on the sea floor can be positive rather than negative. I was struck by a small article I saw about the D-day landings, which stated that the remnants of the Mulberry harbours are still visible above water, but that below water they have become a small zoo of marine wildlife. Even in a circumstance such as that, the imposition of man-made apparatus on the beach and in the sea can be positive. We have all seen the underwater photographs, films and videos of the Titanic, which make that same point. 
 We say that there is an opportunity rather than just a problem, and that by using that opportunity and including a duty on the Secretary of State to take advantage of it, we could achieve some positive environmental advantages that go beyond the simple generation of renewable carbon-free electricity. 
 I should say that English Nature supports the amendment. It has written to say: 
 ''We urge that serious consideration is given to including provisions to allow the expansion of such zones''— 
renewable energy zones— 
''to create conservation zones around installations.'' 
We are moving the amendment with a view to that taking its first step forward. 
 Some 80 per cent. of life on earth is under the ocean surface, and a huge amount of the living space that can viably be occupied by organisms is in the ocean. We have an opportunity, which I hope the Government want to seize, to develop that aspect by agreeing to our amendment.

Robert Key: What a pleasure it is to serve under you this afternoon, Mr. O'Brien. I have a suspicion that your calming influence will reduce the temperature in the Room, which would otherwise be unbearable on such a hot day.
 There is another reason why the amendment of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has some merit. If a reserve were declared around an appropriate area, it could act for not only for the safety 
 of objects on the sea floor, but the whole question of marine safety. I am referring in particular to the issue of legacy wrecks around the world. About 60,000 records of wrecks are kept by the UK Hydrographic Office, and 20,000 of those are named vessels. If those vessels are below 200 m and therefore not likely to be a danger to shipping, they are recorded but not charted. In the western hemisphere, there are 422 records of UK military legacy wrecks alone. 
 The point is that no assessment has yet been made of the damage that could be done through pollution if those wrecks are disturbed. They could be disturbed by the foundations of a turbine or, if we develop tidal stream technology, the action of tidal interference. A system for recording those locations would have merit, and I shall be interested in the Minister's response if he refers specifically to legacy wrecks.

Nigel Griffiths: The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) makes an interesting point. Its validity as to this debate slightly escapes me, although there are merits in his argument.
 Let me address the amendment and the issues that it raises. I am advised that the idea of a marine protected reserve implies the total exclusion of all vessels. That would not be practical in terms of access by the operator of a wind farm to the installations for periodic maintenance. There is also the wider issue of recreational activities such as sailing or fishing. When those activities can safely take place in an offshore wind farm, we would not want to prevent them from happening, and I am advised that the amendment would threaten them. 
 The renewable energy industry and fishing industry liaison group, which was established by my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services, is looking at whether some fishing activities could continue in a safety zone. We want to ensure that the maximum possible use that is acceptable to the local community is made, and the amendment would block off such uses. 
 There are several types of designated marine nature conservation area. It is important not to confuse the ability to establish a wind farm with the laudable aim of creating protected marine reserves. Any resolution of the confusion that has inadvertently been introduced by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove should be left to another Bill.

Andrew Stunell: I hope that the Minister will not think me unkind, but he is struggling. I live 2 or 3 miles from the boundary of the Peak District national park, which is reserved in a similar way to that outlined in my proposal. Trains and roads run through the national park, and people live and work there, but it is a major reserve for nature and recreation.
 Although the Minister was reading accurately from his brief, perhaps his heart is not in this and he recognises that there is scope to take a small but significant step forward.

Laurence Robertson: I also lived in the Peak District, as I mentioned to the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services earlier, and there are no pylons in the national park.

Andrew Stunell: The hon. Gentleman must have a different view of the park from mine, but let us skip over that for the moment.
 I urge the Minister to consider carefully whether he has the opportunity to add value to the Bill through the amendment; he can achieve two goods. If he says to the Committee that the area would have to be treated like the Amazonian jungle with all human activities excluded, he will be saying that there will never be a marine conservation area near to the United Kingdom coast, because no such area could be created. 
 By putting forward a vision of total perfection and a total return to nature, the Minister is seeking to shoot down a moderate and sensible step forward. However, it is clear that, having read his brief and stuck to his guns, he has little intention of giving in. We will return to the issue because an opportunity is being wasted, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful for the opportunity to probe the Minister further and to allow him to familiarise himself in more depth with his brief on clause 96. I referred earlier to the Government's need to perform a strategic environmental assessment before a safety zone is created. I listened carefully to what the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services said this morning, but I am not convinced as to why the Minister is not persuaded by our amendments. Luck would perhaps have been more on my side had you been here, Mr. O'Brien, but the Minister was not persuaded by our arguments for safety zones being the norm. My hon. Friends and I would be grateful to discover in which circumstances the Government would be minded to set up a safety zone.
 The hon. Member for Hazel Grove referred to the excellent briefing that Committee members received from English Nature. I am simply presenting the argument on that organisation's behalf to elicit the Minister's comments. It would argue that clause 96 could go further, and that there could be wider benefits for safety and for marine life were the exclusion zones in the form of safety zones extended. 
 The Minister will have missed my reference this morning to the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) has produced a Bill on marine conservation, which I think will be discussed tomorrow afternoon. I do not know whether the Department will form a view on that in connection with clause 96. In the terms of English Nature, it certainly appears that the Department, working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, could do more—particularly in the context of 
 a strategic environmental assessment—to secure the stewardship of marine life in connection with setting up offshore wind farms. 
 The English Nature brief makes the compelling point that the speed with which offshore wind developments are being sought, and the scale of the developments, are unprecedented and out of step with the strategic environmental assessment work, and that there has been little opportunity as yet to learn the lessons from the first round and apply them to round 2 developments. If the Department of Trade and Industry is not in favour of safety zones for every installation, it would be extremely helpful if the Minister set out what the criteria will be for persuading the Department to create a safety zone around a particular installation.

Nigel Griffiths: I hope that I can be helpful to the hon. Lady in saying that there are a number of precedents for establishing safety zones. To see that, one has only to consider North sea and other oil installations around our coast for which the criteria have been set out. It is also important to realise that safety zones are created at different times in the construction and development of offshore sites. A safety zone may be required during a critical construction phase, but not later.
 I can assure the hon. Lady that there were sufficient precedents in that respect to allow us to frame clause 96. The legislative underpinning is the Coast Protection Act 1949. That is what established practice all these years later is based on. 
 We must ensure that the safety zone regime is adequate—we believe it will be—to safeguard the area of water around or adjacent to a renewable energy installation, and that it is assessed at the various stages of its development and management. Any decommissioning may involve a safety zone, as is the case for other offshore installations. 
 I am informed that an applicant for a safety zone will have to make a case based on safety grounds to the Secretary of State. That case will be assessed by the DTI in conjunction with the MCA. If the installation is to be located where there is minimal traffic and the waters are judged to be safe, the case for a safety zone may not be made. If the case is not made, a safety zone will not be considered appropriate. 
 Where a safety zone is considered necessary, it can be tailored to the particular circumstances of the installation and of the waters where it will be located. I am advised that the fullest consultation will take place with interested parties before the Secretary of State takes a decision on the application—a process that is set out in schedule 16—including provision for a public inquiry to be held where the issues raised are deemed to be of particular importance. It is vital that the clause is in the Bill because it allows the 
 Government to provide a safety zone, which is designed to minimise the risk to life and property. I hope that the Committee will accept the clause. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 16 - Applications and proposals for notices under section 96

Alan Whitehead: I beg to move amendment No. 144, in
schedule 16, page 232, line 42, leave out
'either in addition to or'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 145, in 
schedule 16, page 233, line 35, leave out 
 'either in addition to or'.

Alan Whitehead: The amendments are modest and helpful. They concern the process by which a person or a body wishing to install an offshore installation goes about doing so. Schedule 16 sets out the process by which the inquiry takes place if there are objections to the installation or to the safety zone; clauses 94 to 96 also apply in this regard.
 When an individual or an organisation seeks to place an installation in an offshore site, as set out in clause 94, they must first obtain approval by means of a section 36 application of the Electricity Act 1989. When they seek to do so, they will consider several things, the first being whether an element of the application is covered by a local authority area which, in the case of most offshore applications it will not be. They will therefore consider that in terms of a potential inquiry into their application, it will lie within the purview of the Minister and the mechanisms set out in the previous clauses. 
 Secondly, they will consider whether a safety zone around the installation is likely to be required. In most circumstances, bearing in mind our debates, a safety zone probably would be required, but not necessarily in all circumstances. However, a person or organisation wanting to produce or invest in an installation would want a clear line of approach in terms of the decision-making process of the proposal for such an installation. They would want to know whether there was a safety zone and, if so, whether it was likely to be a matter of controversy and whether it would be the subject of the inquiry. They would also want to know whether the application itself was likely to be the subject of an inquiry. The fact that it would be the subject of an inquiry would not necessarily deter an investor wanting to set up an offshore installation. It is the certainty of the process that is important. My amendment would put certainty into the process, because as schedule 16 suggests, there could be a situation in which an individual or a company wished to put an installation into an offshore site and, because a local authority did not cover that site, the Minister 
 required an inquiry to be held. When that inquiry was being held the investor in the installation might be concerned about the safety zone. That may be a matter for separate side letters; there may be discussions and informal inquiries about whether there should be a safety zone and, if so, what it will consist of. 
 All of that occurs while the installation is not being built because if a section 36 application succeeds and it is built, the subsequent question of the safety zone means that the safety zone has to fit around the installation that is built; it cannot require that the installation has to be removed. While that installation is not built and it is on paper, there is a question about the certainty of investment; the investor will wish to know about the safety zone and how the process by which it will be determined is carried out. 
 As section 16 currently stands, it appears that the Minister can discuss via other devices such as side letters and other processes the definition and extent of a safety zone and that, suddenly, at the end of the process—within perhaps three days of the investor considering that it has come to an end and they can therefore start work on their installation—the Minister may decide that there should be an inquiry after all. The process will then be set back and put into a state of uncertainty again because nothing has been placed on the sea bed for a long period. I am certain that our Minister would not do that, but that is not the point. The point is that the perception of those who are considering investing in the process is that this is a hurdle that they might have to overcome. That creates uncertainty. 
 The amendment addresses that problem. It is proper to consider whether to have inquiries at each stage, but it should be made clear at the beginning of the process if there is to be an inquiry. If there is not to be an inquiry and the process is to proceed by other means, that should also be made clear. The amendment does not in any way abridge the rights of people or organisations—or, indeed, interested non-governmental organisations—to make objections, or the rights of the Minister to consider what is the best way to proceed. It simply suggests that the Minister ought to make that process clear as the process of application takes place, so that when the application is finally determined with regard to installation and the safety zone, it is safe to proceed; certainty is thereby secured. 
 I hope that the Minister will support the amendment or give me assurances about how the outcome can be secured in terms of the process by which installations are decided and become reality.

Richard Page: I must confess that I was rather puzzled when I read amendments Nos. 144 and 145 because I could not quite work out their purpose. I thought that they might be intended to tease out an understanding of this situation and to advance the position that they would bring about, rather than to be definitive amendments. I have listened with great interest and I am not certain that I am that much further forward than when the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead)
 started, but I fully accept that that is my mistake, my error and my weakness, on which the whole Committee can agree without any difficulty.
 I am all for placing duties on the Secretary of State where necessary. The Committee will remember that when we started on clause 1, I was one of the people who said that the Secretary of State should have a duty to ensure the integrity and security of electricity and gas supply. As we know, the Minister weaselled out of that one fairly quickly. The Secretary of State has instead been given carte blanche and will have little responsibility if there is any trouble. 
 In this case, however, I cannot see why the hon. Member for Southampton, Test wants to tie the Minister's hands by creating what I can describe only as a ''go, no-go'' situation. I cannot see why the flexibility of the middle route should not be available. Had the Liberals tabled the amendment, I would think that it was a wrecking amendment designed to cause all sorts of trouble, but obviously the hon. Gentleman does not want to wreck the Bill; he wants to improve it. I will therefore listen with great interest to what the Minister says in accepting or rejecting the hon. Gentleman's comments. 
 The hon. Member for Southampton, Test produced the example of a safety zone. That may be necessary, but does he really think that it would be sensible for the Minister to be able either to do nothing except tick the box, or to have a public inquiry? [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman looks at his amendment, he will see that that is what it would achieve. It would mean that the Minister had either to reject the objections that were put forward, or to go to a public inquiry. There seems to be no halfway house.

Alan Whitehead: I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman and I am obliged to him for his detailed interest in what I am attempting to achieve. However, if he looks at paragraph 4(3)(b) of the schedule, he will see that it says
''if he''— 
that is, the Minister— 
''thinks it appropriate to do so''. 
The Minister can therefore pursue different methods of determining whether there should be a safety zone not including a public inquiry, but if he considers it appropriate, he may determine that there should be such an inquiry. It is not an either/or situation. My amendment is designed simply to ensure that the route is clear when the decisions are initially considered, not right at the end of the process.

Richard Page: I can go along with what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but if he reads paragraph 4(3)(b) of the schedule, he will see that with his amendment it would say, ''must cause a public inquiry to be held, instead of any other hearing or opportunity of stating objections to the application.'' That is how I read it, but what he has just said seems slightly at variance with that.
 It is unusual for me to try to help the Minister and defend him in moments of trial and trouble—we all know that Ministers are in a degree of difficulty at the moment and I want to help them over this blip—but 
 the flexibility that would, in my view, be removed by the hon. Gentleman's amendment should not be removed. We are into, if people will pardon the terrible pun, uncharted waters. We will be doing things that will gradually assume planning law, regulation and accepted practice. I sincerely hope that the Minister will keep the flexibility that is in the Bill. I shall look to see whether he either insults me as a result of my complete lack of understanding of the situation or lets his hon. Friend down gently.

Anne McIntosh: We heard a little from the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services this morning about public inquiries and the procedures that will be used on land. I find the amendments quite interesting, as presumably they are probing the terms of a public inquiry for offshore installations. We know that those who contest planning applications, and particularly those who press for public inquiries, may do so more as a delaying tactic than because they have any conscientious objection to the planning application.
 I am sure that the Minister is about as familiar as I am with the public inquiry procedures, because they involve a different Department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. However, are the original schedule 16 and the helpful amendments of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test based on having the same procedures for a public inquiry into an offshore installation as an onshore installation? Will a time limit be set for the length of any such public inquiry, so as not to delay the process unnecessarily? 
 I think—if I understood the hon. Member for Southampton, Test correctly—it would be the Department of Trade and Industry from which a public inquiry would be sought. If that public inquiry proceeded, but the Department still had objections to its conclusions, to which body could an appellant appeal about those conclusions?

Nigel Griffiths: I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test was very clear in his exposition of the two amendments. For the sake of clarity and to help the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), let me set out what we believe the provisions would achieve—or rather, what we would not want them to achieve. We certainly would not want a decision on a safety zone notice to be held up for a long time after a section 36 consent has been granted just because the Secretary of State decided, fairly late in the day, to hold a public inquiry. That is the nub of my hon. Friend's legitimate concerns. We do not believe that that would be the result of schedule 16, but we will look into the matter again in the light of his comments, and that will be reflected on Report.
 If my hon. Friend is happy with that explanation, I hope that he will consider withdrawing the amendment. I do not believe that there is a specific time limit on a public inquiry. The procedures for a section 36 consent will be the basis of consideration of safety 
 zones. Paragraph 6(9) sets out further information on that. I hope that I have explained that better for the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire and others, although I do not think that I could improve on the excellent explanation given by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test. With that, I hope that my hon. Friend will consider withdrawing the amendment.

Alan Whitehead: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for saying that, although he believes that schedule 16 does not cause the problems that I outlined, he will look at it again. That indeed is what I was attempting to achieve by raising the issue through the amendment. There may be methods other than my amendment by which some of my concerns could be dealt with. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule 16 agreed to.

Clause 97 - Prohibited activities in safety zones

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: On the face of it, the clause gives the Secretary of State considerable power to put in place regulations that would prohibit certain activities. We are told in clause 97(7):
 ''Regulations under this section may confer discretions, with respect to the granting or imposition in accordance with the regulations of permissions or conditions, on such persons as may be specified or described in the regulations.'' 
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire coined the wonderful expression ''uncharted waters''. Clearly, these are wide-ranging powers that the Committee is agreeing to confer on the Secretary of State. What will be the procedure for the adoption of these regulations? Will they be passed by affirmative or negative procedure by a Statutory Instrument Committee in this House or will there be an opportunity for debate in the other place? I do not necessarily say that we disagree with the powers set out in the clause, but I am a little concerned about how wide ranging they are.

Nigel Griffiths: The clause prohibits entry into a safety zone except where permission is granted in a safety zone notice under section 96, which will be specific to the renewable energy installation in question, or in accordance with regulations made by the Secretary of State, which will apply to all safety zones. Such regulations would be passed by negative resolution. They are set out in subsection (8) and cover the general permissions that will apply.
 The regulations are modelled on those that already apply to safety zones around existing oil and gas installations. They will cover such situations as vessels that are providing services to supporting services or goods to installations within the safety zone, vessels that have been saving or attempting to save life or 
 property or vessels in distress. I am not attempting to give the Committee a complete list, but I hope that that gives a flavour of the situations that we have in mind. The clause is an essential part of the safety zone regime. I hope that I have answered the hon. Lady's quite legitimate questions. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 98 - Offences relating to safety zones

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I have one little question. The Minister may be aware that the master of the Prestige is still under house arrest, presumably under international law provisions, in northern Spain after the disaster off the north coast of Spain. It would appear that clause 98, taken together with clause 99, which refers to the creation of a criminal offence, gives the Government wide powers to apprehend the master of a vessel. Has the Minister thought through the possible consequences of that? It would be good to hear that, as with clause 97, these powers are modelled on similar provisions in relation to oil and gas installations. I should be interested to know whether any person has been apprehended under those regulations.

Nigel Griffiths: I am sure that we can make inquiries about that. I hope that it helps the Committee to know that we have set out in the Bill certain defences that are available to a defendant who could not have known that a safety zone was in existence, even if reasonable inquiries had been made. We have also provided for a situation where the master of the vessel or the person responsible has shown that all reasonable steps were taken to prevent the contravention of the safety zone. I am advised that that defence might apply where the navigational gear of a vessel had been damaged and, despite every reasonable effort being made, it could not be repaired and the vessel was blown or carried by the currents into the safety zone. We are covering the practicalities.
 Clause 97, which makes violation of the provisions of a safety zone notice or regulations under clause 90 a criminal offence, is an essential part of the safety zone regime. I hope that, with that explanation, the Committee will agree that the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 99 to 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 102 - Extinguishment etc. of public rights of navigation

Michael Weir: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in
clause 102, page 78, line 41, at end insert—
'(e) may not disrupt any other area of significant economic activity.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 33, in
clause 103, page 80, line 20, at end insert— 
 '(f) consult representatives of other industries with significant economic activity in the area affected.'.

Michael Weir: To some extent, these amendments cover ground that we debated this morning. They are aimed at clarifying the position of those who are already engaged in economic activities in areas that will be defined as renewable energy zones. I am particularly concerned that that will not refer exclusively to fishermen. Committee members will be aware, because we discussed it this morning, that onshore wind developments are running into increasing opposition. We cannot allow that to happen to offshore wind developments, otherwise the whole renewable energy project is likely to come seriously unstuck. In England, we have already seen some fishermen protesting against the building of offshore wind farms along the east coast. In addition to fishermen, there is the question of pleasure craft owners—and other economic activities, some of which may be significant while others may not. They cannot be swept aside.
 When the North sea oil and gas industry was first developing, there were serious concerns among fishermen about the impact on their industry. As it happens, after the initial suspicions, the two more or less got along. I am sure that the same thing can happen with offshore wind energy, but to enable that to happen there must be co-operation from the outset. 
 If we are to achieve the same sort of co-operation, or at least acceptance, regarding fishermen and offshore wind and wave energy, we must take them on board at an early stage and ensure that there is dialogue and discussion early on. I am concerned that clauses 102 and 103 will not achieve that. This was raised in another place, where it was explained that an applicant for a renewable energy zone must make a case for a zone based on safety grounds, which will be assessed by the DTI with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Where a zone is considered to be necessary, it may be tailored to particular circumstances and there may be consultation with interested parties, including fishermen. There may also be a public inquiry. 
 The problem with the clauses is that there is no obligation under clause 102, in particular, for the DTI to take account of existing economic activity in the designated area. It could conceivably ignore the views of fishermen, or anyone else. The provisions in the clauses are not enough. We should ensure that the interests of existing businesses are taken into account in deciding where a zone is situated. I am not trying to 
 achieve a veto on such a zone. Such a measure may go a long way to ensuring that agreement is reached, or there is, at least, meaningful dialogue. 
 I am sure that the Minister will refer me to clause 103(6)(e), which states that opportunities should be given for 
''such persons as that authority considers appropriate'' 
but we need to go further than that and ensure that the fishermen, and other significant economic activity, are specifically addressed at this point. 
 When I asked about compensation to fishermen, Lord Whitty said that it would be a matter for the developer and that the Government saw their role as facilitating discussion between industries and developers. That is not good enough. 
 The Bill gives a power to extinguish rights of navigation through significant parts of our seaways, which could have a dramatic effect on other businesses. Surely it is up to the Government not to impose that unless there is clear authority for dealing with the interests of existing businesses. Fishermen must not simply be ignored, otherwise we will have a situation every bit as bad, if not worse, than the one engulfing the onshore wind industry. I ask the Minister to consider those points.

Nigel Griffiths: I will deal with the amendments separately, as one has slightly more merit than the other, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for saying so.
 A provision such as amendment No. 32, which would insert 
''may not disrupt any other area of significant economic activity'', 
would probably have halted the North sea oil and gas industry in its tracks in its infancy. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman hinted at that. That does not negate the need for consultation, however, and I will come to that in discussing amendment No. 33. 
 If we accepted amendment No. 32, anyone who incurred a loss because of a structure being located in a certain place—by having to go round it or having their access blocked—could sue the developer for causing a nuisance. The addition of the term ''significant economic activity'' could also cause confusion, because as far as I am aware, it is not a recognised economic term. It would be hard to define. 
 I hope the hon. Gentleman will be reassured if I tell him that amendment No. 33 would largely duplicate provisions elsewhere in clause 103 that require the Secretary of State or Scottish Ministers to consult appropriate bodies before deciding how to tackle the right of navigation within a wind farm. Again, use of the term ''significant economic activity'' would cause confusion because of the difficulty in defining it. 
 I hope that I have persuaded the hon. Gentleman on the fears of giving any party an apparent economic veto and reassured him that the need for consultation is already covered, so it is not necessary to duplicate it with amendment No. 33.

Michael Weir: I thank the Minister for that explanation. The phrase ''significant economic activity'' was used in an attempt to ensure that we talk about something significant rather than just one pleasure craft that is significant only to one person but is not an economic concern. I accept his comments on amendment No. 32 and will not press it any further.
 I am not convinced on amendment No. 33. Although I accept that there is consultation, it is only of those the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and I am not sure that that provision is strong enough. However, I have heard the Minister's response and I will give amendment No. 33 some further thought. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Andrew Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 187, in
clause 102, page 78, line 41, at end insert—
 '(5A) A declaration under this section must be published and a right of appeal given within 28 days, to which the Secretary of State must consider any representations before confirming terms of notice.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 188, in
clause 103, page 79, line 34, at end insert— 
 '(2A) A declaration under this section must be published and a right of appeal given within 28 days, to which the Secretary of State must consider any representations before confirming terms of notice.'.

Andrew Stunell: These amendments are similar to amendment No. 184 to clause 96, which we discussed earlier. They are a signal of our concern that the Secretary of State is judge and jury in the process. I am sure that the Minister will repeat the words of his colleague this morning—there will be consultation and discussion—but the reality is that it is sudden death for those who receive such a declaration. We are trying to ensure that the Bill reflects the necessity in natural justice for there to be a right of appeal and for the Secretary of State to be prepared to take a second look at representations before a notice is declared. In view of our earlier discussion, I will leave it at that.

Nigel Griffiths: I am a strong supporter of the rights of consultation, but I also believe that decisions must be taken—that does not face the Liberal Democrats in government. This decision promotes the development of renewable energy and wind production, and I resist the amendment, which would delay that desirable outcome.
 After a due process of consultation, if anybody felt that a future Secretary of State was not applying a fair process, was acting too hastily and not listening to the consultation, I understand that such a decision would be open to judicial review. However, the hon. Gentleman's term ''sudden death'' is regrettable. I fear that the amendment would mean sudden death for the development of any wind farm technologies.

Andrew Stunell: That reply is hardly unexpected in view of our debate this morning. I take note of the Minister's words and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: This morning, we heard from the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services that consents under clause 102 fall under the Transport and Works Act 1992, which apparently does not require a statutory assessment of navigational safety. If the application for consent were made under the Coast Protection Act 1949, such a statutory assessment would apply. A debate on this issue took place in another place. Does the Minister agree that it would be better to alter the practice for consents under clause 102 so that the relevant legislation was the Coast Protection Act and a statutory assessment of navigational safety would take place?
 What will the balance be to extinguish the public's right of navigation? This morning, I was accused by the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) of being minded to extinguish all rights to renewable energy in preference for navigation. I repeat that we seek a balance, but it would be helpful to know what assessment of the safety provisions the Minister will make. 
 We have already considered the scenario of recreational craft being forced into the commercial shipping channel, making it more dangerous for yachts and smaller boats. As to larger boats, we took compelling evidence of the dangers to which commercial shipping would be subjected because of the relative speed at the points of entry, where these installations will be, and in the very busy shipping lanes. I do not believe that the Minister would deny that. It would be helpful to know what the safety assessment will be. Indeed, it would be helpful to know that there will be a safety assessment before the public right of navigation is extinguished. 
 Speed and manoeuvrability are factors. Many of the commercial ships are particularly deep and will not be easy to manoeuvre. This morning, the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services said that the Government are not minded to put extra markings in place—presumably, that will be the responsibility of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency—so commercial ships will be pressurised to move away from the new installations, which will put them in danger. 
 It would be very helpful to know whether the Minister is minded to adjust the Government's applications for consent to the relevant legislation that would allow for a statutory assessment of navigational safety. Also, will he explain on what grounds the public right of navigation would be extinguished under the clause?

Nigel Griffiths: The clause provides the Secretary of State with powers over navigation where the applicant is applying at the same time for a consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 to construct and operate a generating station.
 Clause 103 applies where the applicant already has a section 36 consent and wants to apply for a declaration extinguishing the public right of navigation in respect of that generating station. I am advised that the clause will apply in a very limited number of cases because it applies only to section 36 consents issued before the commencement of a section 201 consent. The clause includes a process to ensure that the generator's application for a declaration is made known, so that there is an opportunity for persons with an interest to give their views to the Secretary of State or to Scottish Ministers as appropriate. Those views are taken into account before a decision is taken. 
 The hon. Lady referred to safety. It is simply not factual to say that navigational safety is not considered under the Transport and Works Act 1992. It is taken into account before an order is made under that Act. The Bill's powers over navigation are less about safety than about the risk that a developer, having received a consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for a development, is sued for installing the wind farm in the water and causing a ''public nuisance''. That is why the clause should stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104 - Application of civil aviation regulations to renewable energy installations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Clearly, the Minister will explain the implications for civil aviation regulations. I am mindful of the fact that civil aviation space, which will be particularly affected, is heavily congested on the east coast and will be shared with Ministry of Defence airspace. Most of the near misses in this part of the country relate to the east coast of England.
 It would be helpful to know in which circumstances civil aviation regulations will pertain. Will the Civil Aviation Authority be the relevant authority? It appears that the CAA is enabled to regulate aircraft. I would be interested to know in what circumstances the CAA would be requested to apply for regulations under clause 104. Bearing in mind the fact that, presumably, oil rigs and nuclear power installations are particularly under threat from—dare one say it—an 11 September-style attack, does the Department envisage consequences for the safety of our shipping, which is proving particularly vulnerable in relation to the oil supply situation in the middle east, should such 
 an installation be subjected to an attack from the air? Will the Minister explain the background to the drafting of clause 104?

Nigel Griffiths: I am happy to do that. The effect of the clause is to enable the CAA to regulate aircraft in the neighbourhood of an installation in a renewable energy zone. It also covers the lighting of such an installation.
 Wind turbines are tall structures and they pose a potential threat to low-flying aircraft. It is therefore important that the CAA has the powers to regulate both the lighting of such installations and the aircraft that fly in their vicinity. The CAA already has such powers under the Civil Aviation Act 1982 in respect of installations in territorial waters. Clause 104 gives it the equivalent powers in respect of installations in the renewable energy zone and aircraft flying in their vicinity. The CAA charts are updated at regular intervals; it is a legal requirement for pilots to carry an up-to-date chart at all times to avoid risks when flying. The clause gives effect to what is a long-standing safety procedure in the UK, which has given us one of the best safety records in civil aviation. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 105 - Amendments of 1989 Act consequential on Chapter 1 of Part 3

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Andrew Stunell: I seek clarification from the Minister, particularly in relation to subsection (5), which refers to the extra-territorial operation of the Act. Does the clause extend all criminal and civil law offences to the areas covered by the legislation or does it refer to the offences that are specifically provided for in the Bill—those related to the licensing of and trespassing in zones? I looked at the explanatory notes, but they are silent on the point. It would be helpful to the Committee to have a clear understanding of what the Minister is asking us to approve.

Nigel Griffiths: I am consulting my notes on the nature of the proceedings. I understand that the clause amends the Electricity Act to give it extra-territorial application. Proceedings in England and Wales can be issued only with the consent of the Secretary of State, which is provided for in the Bill. In Scottish law, criminal proceedings may be brought only by the Lord Advocate as the head of the Crown Office, so there are no specific provisions for Scotland in the Electricity Act. As a result of chapter 1 of part 3 of the Bill, the provision has extra-territorial effect. I will certainly come back to the Committee with details of the severity of the penalties and the nature of the offences that the provisions cover.

Andrew Stunell: I thank the Minister for his remarks. I would find it helpful if he were able to advise the Committee—either in writing or during our later discussions—of the effect of the provision. It is not that I seek to obstruct it, but we should be clear in our minds precisely what we are approving when we agree to the clause.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 105 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 106 - Other amendments consequential on Chapter 1 of Part 3

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Paddy Tipping: This clause is interesting, because it draws on a whole range of previous legislation: the Continental Shelf Act 1964; the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885; the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; the Energy Act 2004; the Petroleum Act 1998; and last, but not least, the Electricity Act 1989. Therefore, it is a complex clause and it may be that some of the previous legislation, which dates back more than 100 years, is outdated and needs consolidation.
 This morning, the hon. Member for Vale of York drew the Committee's attention to a ten-minute Bill, the Marine Wildlife Conservation Bill, introduced by her hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall). Outdated legislation is being used and a set of complexities underlies it. That complexity is outlined in clause 106(4) where a proposed new section 47A is to be added to the Petroleum Act, outlining the factors that the Secretary of State needs to be taken into account. 
 I use the example of clause 106 to say to the Minister that one of the things that needs to be examined is a consolidation of legislation as it affects the sea bed. That is a point that other Committee members have made during the course of the discussions on the Bill; we have strong planning law when it comes to terrestrial matters, but when it comes to the marine environment our legislation lags a long way behind. 
 Perhaps I could draw the Minister's attention to the marine environment report of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which was published in March. It strongly recommended that: 
 ''The current legislative and institutional framework governing marine environmental protection is too fragmented and complex, which is to the detriment of both economic development and environmental protection.'' 
We have had much discussion during the past few hours about economic development and the competing demands on the marine environment. I simply ask the Minister whether in the course of preparing the Bill—particularly clause 106—he has borne in mind the demands from groups such as the Wildlife and Countryside Link and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds? What is needed to underlie the Bill is a new marine Act. I know that discussions 
 are taking place within Departments about that and I would be grateful if the Minister would bring us up to speed on them.

Nigel Griffiths: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who speaks with great authority on those issues. He is right to point out that the proposal attempts to ensure that some longstanding legislation—going back 119 years in the case of the Submarine Telegraph Act 1885—which does not appear to encompass modern day offshore electricity production is included. That Act, as amended by subsequent legislation, makes it a criminal offence to damage a submarine cable and it extends only to high voltage cables and not to the high seas. Therefore, the clause is an attempt to extend that Act to cover all cables, whether they are high voltage or not, and also to cover the territorial sea. The clause also addresses the potential overlap between oil and gas activities on the one hand and renewable energy development on the other. Where there is a possibility that a site will be suitable for both activities, and that developers from both the renewables and the oil and gas industries will seek the Secretary of State's consent to carry out their respective duties, that will be facilitated.
 Thirdly, the clause covers the need to make consequential amendments to PACE to take account of the fact that we are extending criminal law to include renewable energy installations. My hon. Friend suggests that the Secretary of State should be required to have regard to other marine activities in relevant waters, or to the conservation of the marine environment, but I understand that there is already in place an effective process to ensure that such potential conflicts are considered and addressed adequately. That process includes environmental impact assessments for individual projects and strategic environmental assessments, which my hon. Friend champions, for strategic decisions on offshore licence rounds. SEAs are integral to the Government's decision-making process for oil and gas exploration. Areas that are identified as being particularly sensitive to development may be excluded from the competition or constraints may be imposed on developments within them. 
 As my hon. Friend highlighted, there have been suggestions from various bodies that we should consider adopting a more comprehensive range of new legislation, but there is some debate as to what form that might best take. If the reviews conclude that new legislation is required, the Government will consider a comprehensive marine Bill. Of course, we would want to consult on any proposed changes before introducing any legislation. 
 I am also aware of the helpful suggestions from a range of organisations that the Government should explore a more strategic approach to the spatial planning of potentially conflicting marine activities and interests. 
 The Government consultation paper to help to deliver our vision for the marine environment, ''Seas of Change'', recommended marine spatial planning as a means of managing conflicting uses of the sea, as well as for environmental protection. The Government 
 have made a commitment to examine the role of spatial planning for the marine environment with—I am happy to tell my hon. Friend—a presumption in favour of developing a marine spatial plan if that is practical. We are also committed to undertaking a pilot to explore those issues on a non-statutory basis. My colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are taking the lead in drafting its scope. They will be interested to hear from my hon. Friend, to whom I am grateful for his helpful and constructive comments.

Paddy Tipping: I am grateful to the Minister for making those points. I hope that we have the opportunity to discuss a marine Bill in Committee in the not-too-distant future.

Nigel Griffiths: With that, I recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming— 
 Clause 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 108 - Requirement to prepare decommissioning programmes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: May I say how much I enjoyed the debate on clause 106? I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) for getting the name of the Bill right; I could not remember it this morning or this afternoon.
 Clause 108 proposes a requirement to prepare decommissioning programmes, and the Library notes helpfully inform us that greater clarity on security, which was needed before planning permission could be granted, was set out in two letters to my noble Friend Baroness Byford. This is an opportunity for the Minister to set out the content of the exchange of correspondence between his noble Friend and my noble Friend. At the very least, the Minister might explain that content to us. If that is not possible, perhaps he could undertake to write to Committee members with copies of the correspondence. 
 Clearly, it would be helpful to know how extensive the obligation to decommission is and what the state of offshore installations would be following decommissioning. Is that the responsibility of those seeking consent; that is, the developers? 
 The Secretary of State has a discretionary power to impose an obligation on a person to submit a costed decommissioning programme. Under UNCLOS—the United Nations convention on the law of the sea—
 there is an obligation on contracting parties to ensure that renewable energy installations are decommissioned. It would be helpful to know whether the decommissioning programme must be prepared at the time of consent, or whether it can happen at another time. Clearly, the Minister's noble Friend is alert to the fact that there are several requirements under the UN convention, and it would be helpful to know what they are and at what stage the decommissioning programme will be submitted.

Nigel Griffiths: I understand that the UN convention applies only to installations in the renewable energy zone. Of course, we want to ensure that the same decommissioning requirements and standards apply to all marine renewable energy installations, no matter where they are located.
 The UN convention is not prescriptive about how a contracting state must fulfil its obligations. The Bill gives us a scheme that provides the controls necessary to ensure that installations are decommissioned and sets appropriate standards, including environmental standards. The Bill also provides an appropriate level of consultation. The clause gives discretionary power to the Secretary of State to issue a notice that requires a person to submit a costed decommissioning programme. 
 I was speaking to Digby Jones of the CBI at an important conference this morning, and we compared notes on regulations. If this is another power that the Opposition would like to convert from a discretionary to a mandatory power—making another regulation, which would take them to a total of 3,091—the hon. Lady should say so. I fear that that would be the impact of their proposal. 
 Clause 108 gives that discretionary power to impose a requirement on a person to submit a decommissioning programme. It provides for sending a notice requiring the submission of such a programme. There would be no point in requiring the submission of a decommissioning programme before a consent had been granted, as it would not be clear that the project was going to proceed. It would divert resources that a company might wish to put into another project, were the company not to succeed in obtaining a consent. Indeed, nothing would prevent it from adding some comments on decommissioning as part of the consent. 
 As soon as a project becomes a definite reality, the Secretary of State will wish to put in place at an early stage the mechanisms to ensure that it is decommissioned. Equally, the Secretary of State can issue a notice requiring a decommissioning plan to be put in place at subsequent stages in the life cycle of the assets. Clause 108(8) gives details about what the decommissioning programme must contain. 
 Clause 108(9) gives the Secretary of State powers to require the person to provide details of the security that is proposed to ensure that the costs of carrying out the programme will be available at the appropriate time. A legitimate concern for everyone involved in 
 conservation and decommissioning is to ensure that the person contracting the installation does not walk away in any sort of irresponsible manner. 
 A non-exhaustive list of the things that will constitute security for such a purpose is given in clause 117(2). It encompasses letters of comfort and parent company undertakings as well as arrangements more normally thought of as security, such as a letter of credit or security over a deposit. 
 Clause 108(7) gives the Secretary of State the opportunity to require the recipient of a notice to consult persons or organisations specified in the notice. I hope that I have satisfied the Committee that clause 108 is vital to the decommissioning scheme proposed in this chapter of the Bill and I move that the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 109 - Approval of decommissioning programmes

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I want to give the Minister the opportunity to satisfy the Opposition. In his summing-up remarks on clause 108, he omitted to answer a simple question from me, which I will repeat. In approving decommissioning programmes under clause 109, does the Minister intend that the offshore installation in the renewable zone will return to its completely natural state, as it was before the installation was created? Comparisons with a nuclear plant, for example, are not the most helpful, but it might help the Committee to know that there is a planning application to take gravel and other building materials from a site that borders a Neolithic henge at Thornborough henges in the vale of York. That will not be restored to a similar state, but will be made into a water feature. Will the Minister clarify whether approval under clause 109 will involve returning the installation to its natural state?

Nigel Griffiths: The intention is that any return after an installation is decommissioned is to an appropriate, acceptable usage. That means that, as far as possible—I choose my words carefully, because we are all realistic about the matter—that may range from as complete a restoration as possible to some alternative use. It very much depends on the circumstances of the time. However, I assure the Committee that the Government are determined, in this and related clauses, to ensure that exhausted schemes cannot be abandoned, nor can installations be left to rot in the sea to the potential detriment of shipping and of the marine environment.

Richard Page: I appreciate the Minister saying that he does not want things to lie there and rot, but is he not aware of a comprehensive programme of man-made reefs in the bays of the Caribbean where rigs have been deliberately toppled into the water to become fish
 sanctuaries and wildlife havens? The sport of fishing off those toppled oil rigs is now lucrative and major. I appreciate that windmills, in themselves, may not offer the protection necessary for fish to live and breed, but I hope that the Minister does not intend eliminating such a possibility, if it is appropriate.

Nigel Griffiths: As a scuba diver, I have dived in the Caribbean, and I am aware of the value of artificial reefs and of deliberately sunk wrecks. They create a wonderful marine environment.
 Clause 109 will allow us to require decommissioning in accordance with the international standards of the time. The hon. Gentleman posed a question. It may not be appropriate to remove everything; the marine environment may benefit from part of a structure being left, but that does not include some rotting hulk on the sea bed that may be polluting or environmentally damaging, or even dangerous. I think that I have reflected the available balance and I hope that the Committee will allow the clause to stand part of the Bill. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 111 - Reviews and revisions of decommissioning programmes

Alan Whitehead: I beg to move amendment No. 140, in
clause 111, page 90, line 7, at end add—
 '(11) Nothing in this section shall empower the Secretary of State to modify the provisions of a decommissioning programme in connection with the provision of security by any person approved under section 109(4) without the consent of the person affected.'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 141, in
clause 111, page 90, line 7, at end add— 
 '(11) This section applies, in respect of a renewable energy installation, until the decommissioning of the renewable energy installation has been completed in accordance with section 112.'.

Alan Whitehead: These amendments are part of a theme—it is about certainty—and the circumstances in which a commitment to develop is made and carried out. This follows on from our earlier discussion on amendments Nos. 144 and 145. As my hon. Friend the Minister said, the amendments relate to the fact that clauses 108 to 112 are effectively linked and cumulative. Clause 112 requires the person to carry out the process of decommissioning, but the previous clauses set out the circumstances under which that person finally gets to the point of carrying out the decommissioning.
 Clause 108, which we agreed to, presents the possibility of the Minister requiring a person who is installing an offshore wind farm to submit a decommissioning programme for the end of the life of the project. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, 
 although that onus is not on the person submitting the proposal at the time when the proposal is submitted—that is, it is not part of the planning process, but takes place after the application's success—the question of submitting a decommissioning programme would nevertheless normally take place at the outset of the project and would have to be taken into account by the person submitting the proposal. They would have to take into account the life of the project, its cost, the cost of decommissioning and the likely process of decommissioning in deciding whether to submit that programme for investment purposes. 
 Furthermore, under clause 109 the Secretary of State can require that person, at the beginning of the project's life, not just to submit a decommissioning programme, but to submit security to guarantee it, as my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out. 
 Under clause 110, the Secretary of State can reject a proposal put forward by someone seeking to install an offshore wind farm and impose his own decommissioning programme. If he does that, the clause gives him the power to require the installer to provide security on a programme to which the installer has not agreed. Those are onerous requirements, but they are reasonable in light of the idea that an installation should have the means of its own decommissioning available and obvious when it goes into the sea. 
 However, clause 111 would enable the Secretary of State subsequently to change or modify that programme. That is a reasonable provision, inasmuch as circumstances may change, and reconsideration may be needed as a result. However, significantly, if the Secretary of State changes or modifies the programme, he can also change or modify the circumstances under which security is provided, and can do that well into the life of the project. 
 The amendments would address the circumstances under which such modification of security could be effected. My concern in tabling the amendments related to the question of certainty. If I were a potential investor in such an installation, my financial adviser might say, ''We think that this is a proposition worth investing in; it would make x amount of money over a certain number of years. As we have discussed, it would require a certain amount of planning, and it might require a safety zone. All such issues can be accommodated in putting forward a proper plan for the development.'' 
 He would then say to me, ''By the way, at the outset of the project, you are required to provide security for its decommissioning.'' I think, although I may be corrected, that such security would relate uniquely to offshore wind installations and does not at present relate to oil and gas installations for security purposes. If my financial adviser then said, ''By the way, once you have got over all those hurdles, the Secretary of State may vary the security that you must provide without discussion with you,'' I might well think that that was potentially a very high-risk investment that could go seriously wrong, one that I might well not make. 
 In their operation collectively, the clauses seek to do something that we all think ought to be done; to submit a proper decommissioning programme. They also allow the Secretary of State to modify that, but in so doing create a potential long-term problem of uncertainty that needs to be addressed at the outset of a project, and not as a project proceeds. 
 Amendment No. 140 would add to clause 11 the idea that security is a matter for discussion and negotiation, rather than force majeure. The Secretary of State may alter the terms of the security and decommissioning programme, but it would require the consent of the person affected. Secondly, to nail that process to clause 112, which requires the person to carry out the process of decommissioning, the additional words at the end of line 7 also apply during the period of decommissioning; that is that the process of discussion is relevant until the decommissioning is completely finished and the installation is a haven for fish and scuba divers. 
 Without altering the power of the decommissioning programme and the proper resource that is required to go along with it, the proposal restores to the decisions taken at the beginning of the programme the certainty that allows investment in the programme, and a success to be made of that investment during its life.

Anne McIntosh: The amendments, especially amendment No. 140, are extremely useful in allowing us to raise with the Minister the scenario to which the hon. Gentleman alluded; what will happen if a company that has successfully applied for consent and built an installation goes bankrupt? The RSPB also asked what would happen in such a case. I understand that the Government's response is that there is already a decommissioning programme for such installations that works well, but it is not in statute. However, there would be considerable uncertainty if a developer went bankrupt between successfully applying for consent and the installation being built.
 What implications would there be for that installation in those circumstances? Who would be responsible for it? There is a duty under article 60 of the UN convention on the law on the sea, which states: 
 ''Any installations or structures which are abandoned or disused shall be removed to ensure safety of navigation . . . Such removal shall also have due regard to fishing, the protection of the marine environment and the rights and duties of other States.'' 
The hon. Gentleman has done the Committee a great service in tabling the amendment and we await the Minister's response with interest.A contracting company going bankrupt would be deeply worrying and the Government must have considered such a situation.

Andrew Stunell: I welcome the amendments because they draw attention to a difficulty that the Minister should address. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test drew to our attention the application of the law of unintended consequences. It is highly desirable that those who invest and develop offshore energy projects should also take on the liability for clearing up after them. That must be built in to the initial planning; we
 must not repeat the mistakes made at the initial stages of offshore oil development, in which the life cycle of the plant and the industry were not taken fully into account.
 It is fair enough to build that requirement into the initial planning and the Bill seeks to address that. If we take a superficial look, it appears to do so very thoroughly. The problem is that it leaves a high level of uncertainty about the liability of those who invest. Uncertainty is the worst possible ingredient for investors considering how to proceed. A completely open-ended—or, on this occasion, bottomless—demand on finances in order to clean and tidy up afterwards will certainly lead to an investment famine. 
 The problem arises because, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, there is the possibility—even after the decommissioning work has been completely finished—of the Secretary of State deciding that after all there is some other feature that must be taken into account and that therefore he must carry out some more work, when he thought that the job was done. Any potential investor faced with that circumstance would start writing very large numbers on the liabilities side of the investment and business plan, and virtually rule out investment. Surely it is necessary to have a clear timeline for the acquisition of new liabilities. After all, it is understood that the development of awareness of difficulties may well mean that during the lifetime of the project it is accepted that more ambitious and thorough decommissioning is needed. 
 I am directing my remarks to amendment No. 141 in particular. Surely including a provision in the Bill that means that once decommissioning is finished there can be no question of going back is something that the Secretary of State and the Ministers here today should be prepared to buy into. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes and I are happy to support amendment No. 141 on that basis. 
 We would have liked to support amendment No. 140 without reservation, but the hon. Member for Southampton, Test, having discovered the law of unintended consequences, has tabled an amendment that is victim to it. The amendment states that nothing can be done 
''without the consent of the person affected.'' 
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not suspect that that puts a veto in the hands of the person who has to do the decommissioning. Although we would like to support amendment No. 140, it does not quite fit the bill. 
 However, the Minister should recognise that there is a genuine problem. There is a need to balance the legitimate requirement for environmental sustainability, and a complete and effective decommissioning process, with the counterbalancing necessity for certainty when it comes to drawing up investment plans. I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 141, but if he cannot accept one or other of the amendments, I hope that he will at least give the Committee some assurances that he will return and solve this conundrum. In having the best and most 
 sustainable imaginable decommissioning process he may have inadvertently prevented any investment from being made in the first place.

Bob Blizzard: I want to say a word or two in support of the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test is making in his amendments. Of course, offshore renewable energy developers must meet their proper decommissioning commitments, but the clause seems to impose on them a rather large open-ended liability. What sort of assessment has the Minister's Department made of the increased risk and the effect that that might have on attracting the kind of investment that we all want to see in the offshore renewable energy business?
 I wonder whether the Minister could explain, for the benefit of the Committee, how the arrangements differ from the decommissioning regime in place for oil and gas platforms, and why it is necessary to have a different regime for the renewable energy installations.

Nigel Griffiths: May I take the amendments in sequence?
 I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test on amendment No. 140, no matter how well intentioned his attempt to give some certainty to, or to remove uncertainty from, potential investors in these desirable schemes. 
 The issue is straightforward. What if, while building and operating such a scheme, the board team or company were to change, as well as the financial situation of the owner? None of us can predict with certainty whether financial mechanisms put in place in good faith will be subject to problems in the market. If that were to happen, and the new board and owner did not, for some reason, co-operate with the Secretary of State in restoring the security that we all seek, we would want the Secretary of State to have the powers to put in place that security as best as he or she could without the consent of the person affected. That is sad but perhaps necessary, although we hope that the power will not be needed. The Secretary of State may have to use it to protect in the long run the taxpayer who, ultimately, may have to bear the cost of any failure of security or of financial collapse. 
 It is only right that the power is firmly in the Bill. For that reason, I unfortunately cannot accept amendment No. 140; it would remove the powers of the Secretary of State. We are talking about a case in which people, for one reason or another—perhaps through desperation or from unreasonableness—will not reach agreement. I hope that I have given the British Wind Energy Association some comfort that the power is targeted at extreme examples, and I hope that the power does not have to be used. 
 On amendment No. 141, I want to reassure the Committee that the Secretary of State's interest really should come to an end once the renewable energy installation has been decommissioned in accordance with the agreed programme. If the concern relates to ongoing responsibilities—such as the monitoring and the maintenance of parts of the installation that 
 remain in situ and that might be required as part of a decommissioning programme—clause 111 continues to apply. Of course, the Secretary of State would have to act reasonably in seeking modifications to the programme at that stage. Once the terms of the programme have been complied with, I am advised that clause 111 will fall away. 
 In summary, I reject amendment No. 140 on the grounds that we need the power to cover a certain eventuality. That was hinted at by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove when he referred to the North sea and the perhaps rather belated attempts to ensure that decommissioning played a prominent part. The power is needed to avoid that and other scenarios that we all hope—none more so than the British Wind Energy Association and the Secretary of State—will not come about. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked about the regime and compared it to the oil and gas decommissioning scheme. The Petroleum Act casts a wide net over persons liable for decommissioning, and it seeks security only when a significant party leaves a consortium. Our approach there is much more targeted to a more mature, larger and more prosperous sector, so although this regime is based on the oil and gas decommissioning scheme it has different aspects. 
 I hope that I have persuaded my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test to withdraw amendment No. 140. The problems that it would cause have been highlighted by other Committee members. I also hope that I have persuaded him not to press amendment No. 141 because of my assurances about the Secretary of State's interest before and after decommissioning has been completed in accordance with the programme.

Alan Whitehead: I accept that amendment No. 140 is a potential victim of its unintended consequences. One would probably have to write about 10 more clauses to rectify those consequences, and in those further 10 clauses there might be more unintended consequences, which would detain us for a long time.
 I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for clarifying the Government's intent with regard to what is their interest at the end of a period of decommissioning and the circumstances under which their interest might be reawakened. Those words will be very welcome. 
 Nevertheless, I believe that there remain potential and possibly fatal concerns that those financing such installations might raise at the point of commissioning. I hope that these clauses become part of the regulation process of a very successful industry, and if they do I hope that those concerns will be kept under review to ensure that they do not inhibit investment in the way that I fear they might if people do not heed the Minister's words. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 111 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 112 to 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 115 - Duty to inform Secretary of State

Alan Whitehead: I beg to move amendment No. 142, in
clause 115, page 92, line 40, leave out 'or'.

Bill O'Brien: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 143, in 
clause 115, page 92, line 42, at end insert ', or— 
 (c) to participation where the person does not have a serious executive role in those activities.'.

Alan Whitehead: I will not detain the Committee for long on these amendments. They are the final part of what I have to say. Rather like in the ''Three Colours'' trilogy of films, this is an attempt to colour in, in different ways, the question of certainty in the commissioning of projects. With these amendments, I seek to clarify who is included in the requirements of the various clauses that we have just agreed to.
 Amendment No. 142 would delete the word ''or''. Although that appears to be a small change, it would clarify the circumstances in which someone may be caught by the provisions. Amendment No. 143 would distance from being liable someone who was only very peripherally involved in the process. The clauses rightly seek to spell out distinctions; for example, between principals and agents. However, the Bill appears to draw the net rather widely in terms of who might be involved. That may create a climate of uncertainty in the process about who may be liable in cases of decommissioning. My amendments seek to clarify that by putting a boundary around the question, while accepting the principle that, as Stanley Holloway said, ''someone's got to be summonsed.'' Who that person is must be closely and carefully defined to provide certainty in the commissioning process.

Nigel Griffiths: The purpose of the duty to inform the Secretary of State when a person becomes responsible for a renewable energy installation or a related cable is so that the Secretary of State knows who owns or has a material interest in the installations or the line. Offshore wind farm projects can change hands rapidly. There is nothing wrong with that; it is to be expected in an emerging industry. The Secretary of State must be able to keep track of those changes so that she can make the decommissioning scheme work effectively.
 The categories of legal persons classed as becoming responsible for an installation or related line, and who therefore have a duty to inform the Secretary of State, are listed in subsection (2). We must place a duty not only on those who initially begin to construct, extend, operate, use or decommission the installation or the 
 line, but on those who subsequently join a project and begin to participate in such activities. In other words, we need to catch the other people who have a material interest in the project. 
 Subsection (8) makes it clear that any person participating on behalf of another person or providing services is excluded. That will exclude subcontractors, staff employed by developers, and staff employed by those providing services such as banking. The clause is not aimed at such people. It is not necessary to accept my hon. Friend's amendment, which covers employers of persons participating in the transaction. 
 The next question is whether the amendment intends to exclude anyone else from the duty in subsection (1). I am advised that the terms are difficult to construe legally and might, for example, exempt a person providing a large share of the finance for a project who does not hold an executive role. The Secretary of State would want to know who that person was, and the amendments would—deliberately or inadvertently—deprive the Secretary of State of the potential to acquire that knowledge. 
 I hope that I have sufficiently explained that serious point and that my hon. Friend understands the thinking of the Secretary of State when drafting the Bill. She has taken on board the key fears and concerns, but she is also determined to have proper safeguards for an area of development in which ownership can rapidly change. I hope that that explanation satisfies my hon. Friend.

Alan Whitehead: Once again, I would be grateful to the Minister if he ensured that, as the investment programme gets under way, the law of unintended consequences does not appear to apply. He made good points about the powers that should be available to the Secretary of State for ensuring that responsible people are properly responsible, but those who are not seriously responsible should not be caught up. I take his point that it is difficult to define in law, for example, the role of a sleeping partner, who perhaps has a substantial interest that is not clear on the surface. Nevertheless, if, as a result of attempting to define that in the law, someone without a serious interest is caught, greater uncertainty could be introduced. I hope that, as the Minister said, it is not the Government's intention to catch those people in the net, and that that will become the reality. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn 
 Clause 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 116 and 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
Further consideration adjourned.—[Charlotte Atkins.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at Five o'clock till Thursday 17 June at five minutes to Nine o'clock. 
O'Brien, Mr. Bill ( 
 Chairman 
 Atkins, Charlotte 
 Blizzard, Mr. 
 Challen, Mr. 
 Griffiths, Nigel 
 Key, Mr. 
 McDonald, Mr. 
 McIntosh, Miss 
 Murphy, Mr. Denis 
 Page, Mr. 
 Picking, Anne 
 Robertson, Mr. Laurence 
 Ruffley, Mr. 
 Stewart, Ian 
 Stunell, Mr. 
 Timms, Mr. 
 Tipping, Paddy 
 Turner, Dr. Desmond 
 Walley, Joan 
 Weir, Mr. 
 White, Brian 
 Whitehead, Dr.